Thank you for the write up.
Although the article was overall informative, I was personnally a bit disapointed not to see any image comparions at low ISO, nor info on the actual lens cast issue.
It is obvious that most buyers will do their own comparison, but image quality will be one important criteria, just like screen etc... I don't see why you find it relevant to give us your opinion about screen quality but irrelevant to post low ISO landscape images shot with both backs?
Even if the system used is different (which was a surprising decision in the first place), there would still be some value in showing us the resulting images. Let's hope that your Iceland trip will give you the chance to do a rigorous comparison with the 2 backs on the same body/same tripod shooting the same scene. A difference of 5% will be huge for these products that both claim to be the best and charge accordingly. Is it coherent to pay so much for the best, but then not to be interested in checking whether the best really is the best?
The Ferrari comparison is IMHO not relevant. Nobody can use a Ferrari close to its rated capabilities in actual usage, but everybody will use these backs at their max every single day. It is these small 50% gain over a 1ds2 that make people buy these backs, while it is image that make people buy Ferraris.
Knowing that "Car and Driver" prefers the brakes of the Porsche over those of the Ferrari is irrelevant, but knowing that you prefer the detail/highlights roll out/... of P45/A45 would have been totally relevant because of how experienced a shooter you are.
Would these conclusions be applicable to interior shooting, architcture,...? No, but I feel that your conclusions on the value of each back for landscape shooting would be relevant for other landscape shooters. And this is what this site is all about, isn't it?